Reply
Wed 27 Sep, 2006 04:40 am
A Means for Self Actualization
Abraham Maslow defined a hierarchy of needs to be:
1) Biological and Physiological (water, food, shelter, air, sex, etc.)
2) Safety (security, law and order, stability, etc.)
3) Belonging and love (family, affection, community, etc.)
4) Esteem (self-esteem, independence, prestige, achievement, etc.)
5) Self-Actualization (self-fulfillment, personal growth, realizing personal potential, etc.)
This hierarchy makes us conscious of the obvious fact that we did not fret about the absence of self-esteem if we did not already have security nor did we worry about security if we did not have water to drink or air to breath.
"A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be. This is the need we may call self-actualization ... It refers to man's desire for fulfillment, namely to the tendency for him to become actually in what he is potentially: to become everything that one is capable of becoming ..."
I think that the area in which Western society fails most egregiously is in the matter of an intellectual life after schooling. We have a marvelous brain that goes into the attic after schooling is complete and is brought out only occasionally on the job or when we try to play bridge or chess.
It appears to me that the fundamental problem faced by most Western democracies is a lack of intellectual sophistication of the total population. Our colleges and universities have prepared young people to become good producers and consumers. The college graduate has a large specialized database that allows that individual to quickly enter the corporate world as a useful cog in the machine. The results display themselves in our thriving high standard of living, high technology corporate driven life styles.
We are excellent at instrumental rationality and deficient at developing the rationality and understanding required for determining normative values. It seems to me that our societies are not prepared intellectually for the demanding task ahead. The only solution seems to be a change that will significantly increase the intellectual sophistication of the society as a whole. We need a rising tide of intellectual sophistication and Self-Actualization might be the way for our adults to add an intellectual life to their acquisitions.
Maslow learned to distinguish "special talent creativeness" from "self-actualizing (SA) creativeness",
which springs more directly from the personality, and showed itself in the ordinary affairs of daily life. This is all potentiality given to most people at birth and is generally lost or buried or inhibited, as the person becomes more acculturated. These self-actualizing humans "do not neglect the unknown, or deny it, or run away from it or try to make believe it is really knownÂ…They do not cling to the familiar, nor is their quest for the truth a catastrophic need for certainty, safety, definiteness, and order."
The creativity of self-actualizing individuals is a derivative of their "greater wholeness and integration". SA creativeness stress first the personality, individuality, character and attitude rather than accomplishments. Character traits, the habits of behavior, such as boldness, courage, freedom, spontaneity, perspicuity, integration, and self-acceptance express itself in the creative life. "It is emitted like sunshine."
What means do we have to consciously help us to become self-actualizing adults? I think that self-actualization can best come through self-learning (autodidactic).
Re: A Means for Self-Actualizing
coberst wrote:It seems to me that our societies are not prepared intellectually for the demanding task ahead.
We might get a good discussion going if you elaborate on what this demanding task is, and who is demanding it.
Re: A Means for Self-Actualizing
Shapeless wrote:coberst wrote:It seems to me that our societies are not prepared intellectually for the demanding task ahead.
We might get a good discussion going if you elaborate on what this demanding task is, and who is demanding it.
The demanding task is to save our planet and our species from extermination by our (human) presence.
That certainly is a central task, though I would differ from you on the means for meeting it head-on. I would say that saving the planet, for example, is better served by developing more environmentally sound sources of energy, finding modes of production and consumption that take less of a toll on the natural world, etc. The things you're suggesting here are not contrary to this, of course, but neither are they necessarily implied in it. Indeed, it's hard to see how "embracing middle class scholarship" translates into any kind of action at all, let alone the kind that will help save the planet.
Shapeless wrote:That certainly is a central task, though I would differ from you on the means for meeting it head-on. I would say that saving the planet, for example, is better served by developing more environmentally sound sources of energy, finding modes of production and consumption that take less of a toll on the natural world, etc. The things you're suggesting here are not contrary to this, of course, but neither are they necessarily implied in it. Indeed, it's hard to see how "embracing middle class scholarship" translates into any kind of action at all, let alone the kind that will help save the planet.
I think that the more intellectually sophisticated a nation's citizens are the more rational will be the decisions of that nation and the more rational the decisions the better.
If you're saying that "intellectual sophistication" will decrease the number of gas-guzzling SUVs, then sure, I'll go along. But as a plan of action, it would be more effective to cut to the chase rather than tell people to get into intellectual shape.
Higher intellectual sophistication would only lead to more sophisticated methods of abuse. A keen mind does not guarantee a kind heart.
In a world where profit has become the number one reason for killing, I am not sure sharpening people's intellects would remedy anything.
What is needed is a fundamental change of attitude. There really is no justifying that one man can own sums that equal the budget of a small country, while entire nations live on the brink of starvation.
When was it decided that it is ok to rape the world, as is pretty much what us western consumer junkies are doing?
How does our conduct today differ from the slave trade some centuries ago?
Cyracuz wrote:When was it decided that it is ok to rape the world, as is pretty much what us western consumer junkies are doing?
It was never decided, it is just the innate nature of our species. Organisms that evolve in the presence of plenty do not develop a need or respect for conservation. We may be the most intelligent species on this planet but that does't make us God's gift to Earth, and people who think our superiority obligates us to a higher standing are being a bit naive to the primitive underlying personal objectives that define us.
I think I agree with that Stuh. But I'd also say that people who believe in our superiority are a bit naive.
What worries me is the degenerative effects our chosen way of life has on our species. We've chosen values that defy evolution. But we're not above evolution, and that's why I think that good may not come of it.
Cyracuz wrote:I think I agree with that Stuh. But I'd also say that people who believe in our superiority are a bit naive.
That was my intended implication, also.
Quote:What worries me is the degenerative effects our chosen way of life has on our species.
Degenerative? But we are extremely prosperous!
Quote:We've chosen values that defy evolution. But we're not above evolution, and that's why I think that good may not come of it.
Considering that evolution made us what we are and made us think this way, I would not say that our values defy evolution. Perhaps we will be our own ruin...actually, I assume that we will. But what 'good' thing doesn't come to an end?
Are we extremely prosperous?
I do not know if I agree. We've lots of things, but what about our values?
We protect our ignorance, we glorify our fear, and greed is encouraged. To love is to own, hate is justifiable, and pride blinds us so we cannot see that we are great fools. How is this being prospeous?
Cyracuz wrote:Are we extremely prosperous?
I do not know if I agree. We've lots of things, but what about our values?
We protect our ignorance, we glorify our fear, and greed is encouraged. To love is to own, hate is justifiable, and pride blinds us so we cannot see that we are great fools. How is this being prospeous?
We have multiplied our numbers into the billions. We have developed the ability to harness the power of all the fundamental forces. We have replaced thousands of square miles of the Earth's surface with marvelously engineered skyscrapers. Any kind of device that can be dreamed up can and usually has been engineered and is for sale. The entire world is networked together over a fiber optic internet. Food, shelter, and survival are so cheaply acquired that for most of us that they need not even be a consideration. We are able to leave our own atmosphere and return. Millions of people occupy their time just trying to dream up ways to make themselves even more godly rich, because everything we really NEED is already taken care of. So yes, we are very very prosperous. I don't see what thoughts or emotions have to do with it.
As in opposing ethics to materialism....
Many forget the adaptivity of our species...
Quote:Food, shelter, and survival are so cheaply acquired that for most of us that they need not even be a consideration.
Well, the west is not the entire world. We needn't consider food, shelter and survival because we've taken the riches of other countries to provide for ourselves.
But in those countries food, shelter and survival are the only things people worry about, because it is not guaranteed that they will have a meal every day. Safety is not guaranteed, and if someone does get raped, mutilated or even killed, there is precious little they can do about it. Our safety and comfort come at a high price, and the bill is sent to the third world countries (metaphorically speaking).
True...but our perspective of third world countries is from our extremely prosperous viewport. For most animals life is a daily struggle for survival to get food. This is how things have always been. Just because there are some humans who still have not been able to escape that age-old way of life does not mean that our race as a whole should not be considered prosperous...because it seems that most of us are prosperous.
stuh
I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but I believe it is close to: 10% of the worlds population owns 90% of the world's riches.
Even if these numbers are completely off the mark I think you would still find, with only a little digging, that the majority of all people in the world live under what we in the west have defined to be the border to poverty.
So most of us are poor, not prosperous.
The right way to go, IMO, would be to level the inequalities of what the same thing is worth in differnt parts of the world. To abolish the unjust tradelaws that work to keep this imbalance as it is, and to bring the comfots of our "enlightened" societies to anywhere in the world it is welcome.
Quote:the majority of all people in the world live under what we in the west have defined to be the border to poverty.
Right...what we in the west have defined. But we cannot use that definition of prosperity because it is only intended to refer to humans. When we are talking about the prosperity of humanity, we must have a definition of prosperity that works for all animals, so that we can compare the prosperity of humanity to that of other animals. An animal living in the forest that owns nothing would be the standard baseline in my book. Anything above that level is on the plus side. Even the humans that are classified as poor by the insanely rich are generally much more prosperous than that baseline.
Quote:Right...what we in the west have defined. But we cannot use that definition of prosperity because it is only intended to refer to humans.
Humans are what we're talking about. Some humans are very prosperous. But not all. Not even half of them. Maybe not even a quarter.
Below the povertyline means that they do not have the means to support themselves, and that their existence takes place below what we see as humanly dignified. Most people. A few have enough to sustain them for thousands of years, even though they'll only live one hundred if they're lucky.
Quote:Humans are what we're talking about.
Yes, we are talking about humans, but it seems that you've forgotten why we're discussing prosperity in the first place.
You said:
Quote:What worries me is the degenerative effects our chosen way of life has on our species.
And I replied:
Quote:Degenerative? But we are extremely prosperous!
And in my reply, "we" referred to the human race...and "extremely prosperous" meant that the human race was much more prosperous than other races of animals.
Ok. Sorry about that.
But disregarding our fetish for trinkets, our prosperity is a small thing. Our way of life is degenerative in the sense that it seeks to shelter us from situations where we need to apply ourselves.
We have machines that do the thinking. We just plot the values. One man made this machine, and he's probably smarter for it. But all the users who never get to practice their reasoning skills because of it get dumber.
Thirty years ago pretty much everyone knew how to do division on a sheet of paper. Today precious few know this, because division is always done electronically. The absence of a need to improve ourselves makes us forget to do it.
And at the dawn of humanity I bet everyone knew how to make fire. How many people do you think can make fire today without matches or a lighter?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace